26 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

For sure, it can move quick in a straight line. But turning, even with the free pivot, is going to be difficult if you play correctly with 25% terrain coverage with range 1 between each piece. I also wonder how it interacts with barricades. Can it move over them? Land on them?

Well, you did indicate that you thought it would be slow in your first post, which is why I did the math.

I do agree it is not particularly nimble, although the free pivot will help with that. It might have difficulties in turning in an urban environment, but it ignores much of the most common terrain, especially since Speed 1 means it effectively ignores Difficult Terrain. But, in that same urban environment, it can fairly easily get Cover against side shots, or completely prevent side shots while keeping line of sight to an objective.

Who else thinks the X-34 is too Mad Max? They should've gone with the A-A4B landspeeder .

Personally I like the fact that the speeder is based on an iconic star wars vehicle.

14 minutes ago, patox said:

Who else thinks the X-34 is too Mad Max? They should've gone with the A-A4B landspeeder .

Maybe, but it the x34 is more iconic and really fit with the faction. Space terrorists dont care about the law after all.

I'd prefer AAC-1 but, hey, I'm just a guy with a dream.

I mentioned this a few pages back, but it got buried, so I’ll try again.

When the X-34 reaches its resilience in damage and you roll a Surge, which means weapon destroyed, will that affect the crew weapon upgrades?

The “Crew” upgrades are not just weapons, they’re personnel, so does that just leave the 2 white dice weapon that comes with the Landspeeder and maybe the hardpoint if you added one?

My guess is that it will not affect those weapons, but I guess we’ll have to wait for a Rules update. Personally I think the Landspeeder needs this little benefit, as it may start at 75 points, you need to add 3 weapons to make it useful and that will take you to 150 which is exactly where the tank is naked (and it’s still stronger).

Anyone have any alternate thoughts?

@JediPartisan Well, I know that the AT-RT's blaster rifle is roughly equivalent to the crew weapons, in that a person is holding the weapon rather than it being attached to the vehicle, and it is a valid selection for Weapon Destroyed.

Therefore, I'd expect the crew weapons to be valid selections as well, with no distinction for the upgrade slot used to add the weapon. With potentially 4 weapons on the vehicle (including the driver's pistol), I think Weapon Destroyed will not be that bad of the options.

Of course, a couple more unsaved DTL shots and the speeder is going to die anyway, which tends to be what happens to my flamethrower AT-RTs.

17 minutes ago, JediPartisan said:

I mentioned this a few pages back, but it got buried, so I’ll try again.

When the X-34 reaches its resilience in damage and you roll a Surge, which means weapon destroyed, will that affect the crew weapon upgrades?

The “Crew” upgrades are not just weapons, they’re personnel, so does that just leave the 2 white dice weapon that comes with the Landspeeder and maybe the hardpoint if you added one?

My guess is that it will not affect those weapons, but I guess we’ll have to wait for a Rules update. Personally I think the Landspeeder needs this little benefit, as it may start at 75 points, you need to add 3 weapons to make it useful and that will take you to 150 which is exactly where the tank is naked (and it’s still stronger).

Anyone have any alternate thoughts?

yep I agree with your assessment and it only makes sense as the weapons they carry are not the ones targeted. But we also have to consider that with the 1 to 1 damage to the unit inside probably single units with lesser life points would be dead at the speeders threshold.

Yeah, I was gonna bring up the fact that you only need to mobility kill the TX-225 earlier, but by then you're only two wounds away, if you can actually destroy it might as well finish it.

Also these guys are like, literally hanging off the back end of a speeder with their weapons, if it's taking fire they could totally have their gear damaged or dropped if the damager chooses to put it on that weapon.

5 minutes ago, UnitOmega said:

Also these guys are like, literally hanging off the back end of a speeder with their weapons

Makes me wonder why they are not falling off

2 minutes ago, ResoluteHusky said:

Makes me wonder why they are not falling off

They are glued down. 😁

3 minutes ago, ResoluteHusky said:

Makes me wonder why they are not falling off

Never skip leg day.

58 minutes ago, ResoluteHusky said:

Maybe, but it the x34 is more iconic and really fit with the faction. Space terrorists dont care about the law after all.

The Alliance to Restore the Republic flies state-of-the-art star superiority fighters that's multiple generations ahead of the Imperial Navy fighters, but on the ground they need to resort to Pintos? The A-A4B or the AAC-1 seem more inline with their equipment. They're not Jawas (no offense to those little guys)

I should say for me these are exciting, I was getting rather Monty Python and just seeing infantry, infantry and more bloody infantry.

1 hour ago, patox said:

The Alliance to Restore the Republic flies state-of-the-art star superiority fighters that's multiple generations ahead of the Imperial Navy fighters, but on the ground they need to resort to Pintos? The A-A4B or the AAC-1 seem more inline with their equipment. They're not Jawas (no offense to those little guys)

Only because they were provided by a sympathetic company. And the Ywings were stolen Clone wars scrap, as we saw in Rebels.

At least the x34 was seen on screen, even if in a civilian capacity

3 hours ago, patox said:

Who else thinks the X-34 is too Mad Max? They should've gone with the A-A4B landspeeder .

I actually like the X-34 as its such an iconic star wars vehicle. Having said that, I was expecting rebels to use a flash speeder

Or maybe a Gian V-19 Speeder "donated" by the Naboo Royal Security Forces

I'm a Rebel player and i'm excited about the speeder. The long-named-tankalike scares, but also did the AT-ST.

One thing that I'm asking is: How will the tank pivot? I mean, with round bases it's quite easy, I use a movement tool to "mark" one of the arc lines, and pivot up to 90 degrees (to the next arc line). With the oval base doesn't seem to be easy to do 🤔

Emplacement Troopers are still troopers, so as far as I can tell, the speeder can still pick up and carry the laser turret around.

1 minute ago, RavenwolfXIII said:

Emplacement Troopers are still troopers, so as far as I can tell, the speeder can still pick up and carry the laser turret around.

That would be great, Lol!

2 minutes ago, RavenwolfXIII said:

Emplacement Troopers are still troopers, so as far as I can tell, the speeder can still pick up and carry the laser turret around.

That is correct for the empire's new APC (it's not a feckin tank in my book as the armament is too low and it can carry stuff), however the landspeeder is still limited to a single small based trooper unit

2 minutes ago, thepopemobile100 said:

That is correct for the empire's new APC (it's not a feckin tank in my book as the armament is too low and it can carry stuff), however the landspeeder is still limited to a single small based trooper unit

Ah, I missed that part of the land speeder. Part of me hopes they'll be able to shoot from the open top; I'd love to mount the Imperial turret up there.

21 minutes ago, thepopemobile100 said:

That is correct for the empire's new APC (it's not a feckin tank in my book as the armament is too low and it can carry stuff), however the landspeeder is still limited to a single small based trooper unit

I mean at least call it an assault gun, those are not tanks

it's like how the AT-DT is just a flak 88 on chicken legs.

I mean, the Occupier is almost literally an IFV, it's a Alvis Stormer Flatbed with greebles on it. As a good SW prop should be.

Personally, following the trend of vehicle names in SW over the decades, I am assuming the "GAV" stands for "General" Armored Vehicle, because it's usually LAV or HAV in reference to Light or Heavy vehicles (w is definitely "wheeled" and r is "repulsor"). Calling it a Combat Assault Tank is probably contractor inflation. Imperials will probably have to wait for the 2-M (Or FFG original SC2-M, Scout variant, hopefully also with Rebels getting the FFG original T2-E CEV) for a properly tank-type vehicle called a tank. Because this is Star Wars, and we name things after what is cool, and ignore Military Science. Do you think this is Halo or something?

EDIT: Alternatively, FFG gets to put their own spin on the vehicle again, and we can get a TX-225 variant which gives it more guns in the flatbed - the reason why it's a Flatbed IRL is to hold a mine system.

4 minutes ago, UnitOmega said:

Because this is Star Wars, and we name things after what is cool, and ignore Military Science. Do you think this is Halo or something?

No, I don't think this is Halo. Mainly because Star Wars is actually good

5 minutes ago, thepopemobile100 said:

No, I don't think this is Halo. Mainly because Star Wars is actually good

Hey, careful. Pre-343 Halo is really good. Novels too. Star Wars should not throw stones about being a perfect franchise all the time. Also Halo gave us RvB, which was heavily quoted earlier.